SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment
-
ksi:
:hi5:
I support you, Tankee!!!tankee:
I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.
it is pure poor planning. no excuse.
-
snowman.697:
Overcrowding will NEVER be solved!!
snowman.697:
Maybe we could look to the solutions in other countries (e.g., Hong Kong)...May I have a solution as to how overcrowding can be solved?
http://openkitchenconcept.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-07-14T22%3A02%3A00%2B08%3A00
The lady who writes this blog is very widely travelled. She has experienced the public transport system on every continent. And she points us in a direction where one might find a solution.
It might be premature to conclude that there is no solution to a problem without having brought more effort to bear on finding a solution. After all, mankind has found innovative solutions to so many things.
One could just as well as have said...
- \"There is no solution to the problem of having to wait 3 months to get a letter from England\"
- \"There is no cure for cancer\"
In Queen Victoria's Britain, some aristocrats said
- \"There is no solution to the problem of overcrowding in poor tenements. That is how poor people have lived for centuries.\"
Once one concludes that there is no solution, one stops searching. For sure then, the problem will not be solved. I'm a little surprised that you are 13... because your thinking seems to be very old. Usually, it is old people who are closed to possibilities... who do not keep an open mind to what is possible... and cannot envisage change because they know the status quo and cannot see beyond it.
I am quite concerned that you are not the only young person that I have come across who believes that Singapore has problems that cannot be solved. One young man in a top class in a top JC (with stellar grades) commented that even if our education system has problems he sees no solution, then there must be no solution. I discerned some arrogance there. If I (top grader in top class in top JC) sees no solution, then there must be none. I too was challenged to propose a solution at that time. I couldn't propose any at that time because I had had no access to data, to successful case studies, to historical events in the development of the current system. But I refused to accept that just because he couldn't find a solution and I had no solution - then there must be no solution.
No solutions to the problem of overcrowding? Why so easily accept intellectual defeat? Have we become a nation of physical AND intellectual weaklings? Physically, we have soldiers who ask maids to carry their backpacks. Intellectually, we have talented students in top schools who have been so crammed with knowledge that they fail to see beyond the knowledge we feed them, to possibilities that don't yet exist.
Surely this is not your fault. What have the elders of this nation done to age a nation's youth beyond their time? In youth mental processes and blood veins/arteries are flexible. Arteriosclerosis sets in only after middle age unless the body has been much abused. Have we so much abused our talented youth so much that they have developed arteriosclerosis of the mind? -
as this is a public forum ( albeit usually by fair minded parents and kids alike ), there are bound to be some differences in opinions. But all in all, it is very interesting to see so many strong valid views from all concern
.
I would be impressed if MY 13 yr old son put so much effort to get all the information on SMRT operations :scratchhead: , so kudos to snowman on that, if he is 13. He will definitely do well in projects and such.
There is no right or wrong in our opinions, whichever view we take, but I do see that we are deviating from the topic in hand - the xxxx fare increase proposal !
They do this everytime there is an opportunity or excuse, not because they begin to see cost overruns that may affect the operation effectiveness.
The point is not that they give 80% of the profits back to shareholders, what we hope to see is the 80% profit somehow given back to the USERS, the commuters. Hence the request for a NTC instead of profit-driven organisations. ...but we do know who the majority shareholders are for these 2 companies, right ?
and THIS application for fare increase now ( just after GE ) is definitely NOT right.........in my personal opinion
-
Chenonceau:
:goodpost:
I am quite concerned that you are not the only young person that I have come across who believes that Singapore has problems that cannot be solved. One young man in a top class in a top JC (with stellar grades) commented that even if our education system has problems he sees no solution, then there must be no solution. I discerned some arrogance there. If I (top grader in top class in top JC) sees no solution, then there must be none. I too was challenged to propose a solution at that time. I couldn't propose any at that time because I had had no access to data, to successful case studies, to historical events in the development of the current system. But I refused to accept that just because he couldn't find a solution and I had no solution - then there must be no solution.
Just the response for this thread about youths... may I duplicate it there?
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004
Yes, we're kinda :offtopic: ... let's steer back. -
Daddy
Ummm... I guess you can... since you already have.
Just the response for this thread about youths... may I duplicate it there?
http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24004
I need to clarify that Snowman's discourse has been most impressive. It is excellent that he applies himself to the issues of the day and shows he can think critically. I have no special interest in this SMRT topic but just wanted to make the point that it may be premature to conclude that there is NO solution. -
Transport council has to deliberate btw the interest of commuters vs shareholders who are vastly instituitions. For commuters, any fare increase is unwelcome whereas for shareholders, they are expecting a decent dividends for taking the risk. Historical dividends payout is above 70% fromm its nett earnings which translate to nett yield of 4.5% taking the current stock price.
The awkward situation is commuters hve hve no re-course whereas the co needs to please its shareholders otherwise the latter will dump its shares and will make it more expensive to raise funds in the future for capital expenditure.
Singapore is a pro-business city state, needs to continue to attract capital. Of course commuters are not interested to hear this as it hurts their pocket whenever travelling cost increase.
Ultimately it depends which side of the fence you are sitting, hence different opinions being voiced out. -
Edureach:
hiTransport council has to deliberate btw the interest of commuters vs shareholders who are vastly instituitions. For commuters, any fare increase is unwelcome whereas for shareholders, they are expecting a decent dividends for taking the risk. Historical dividends payout is above 70% fromm its nett earnings which translate to nett yield of 4.5% taking the current stock price.
The awkward situation is commuters hve hve no re-course whereas the co needs to please its shareholders otherwise the latter will dump its shares and will make it more expensive to raise funds in the future for capital expenditure.
Singapore is a pro-business city state, needs to continue to attract capital. Of course commuters are not interested to hear this as it hurts their pocket whenever travelling cost increase.
Ultimately it depends which side of the fence you are sitting, hence different opinions being voiced out.
I don't follow your point on needs to continue to attract capital.
How does allowing profitable monopolistic public transport companies to repeatedly increase public transport fare link to being pro-business and ability to attract capital? :?
:idea: unless the government plans to attract investors to set up alternate transport companies here. I doubt this will happen.
-
tankee:
hiEdureach:
Transport council has to deliberate btw the interest of commuters vs shareholders who are vastly instituitions. For commuters, any fare increase is unwelcome whereas for shareholders, they are expecting a decent dividends for taking the risk. Historical dividends payout is above 70% fromm its nett earnings which translate to nett yield of 4.5% taking the current stock price.
The awkward situation is commuters hve hve no re-course whereas the co needs to please its shareholders otherwise the latter will dump its shares and will make it more expensive to raise funds in the future for capital expenditure.
Singapore is a pro-business city state, needs to continue to attract capital. Of course commuters are not interested to hear this as it hurts their pocket whenever travelling cost increase.
Ultimately it depends which side of the fence you are sitting, hence different opinions being voiced out.
I don't follow your point on needs to continue to attract capital.
How does allowing profitable monopolistic public transport companies to repeatedly increase public transport fare link to being pro-business and ability to attract capital? :?
:idea: unless the government plans to attract investors to set up alternate transport companies here. I doubt this will happen.
These transport cos need to pay decent dividends to attract instituitions to park their money. Without an increase in fares, cos unlikely to maintain its current divideds policy let alone increase it.
Attracting instituitons to park their money in our major cos helps to grow Singapore as a financial powerhouse. This is a pro-business stand.
Personally, i resonate more with the commuters as i rather hve these cos trim some of their fats ie top execs pay. As this is a captive industry, the high degree of difficulties to attract customers thru innovation and risky enterprices are not prevalent vs-a-vs many other ventures. In short, its a cash cow business. The other areas that they can explore are other avenues of income examples attracting advertising revenues, maximise its retail space and investment income.
I also hope that our transport council takes into consideration all avenue of income to arrive at their decision not just strictly operating income. -
Is transport a monopolistic business in Singapore? Arguably so. It is so to some extent in most countries also, you don’t generally set up duplicate train tunnels and stations so that companies can operate independently, so at the very least, the infrastructure owner has a monopoly. However, that does not preclude using a free market model (with regulation) for its services to be costed. Can SMRT be non-profit? Absolutely, if it can be demonstrated that a non-profit model can result in the operating efficiencies that will improve services and cap costs for the commuters, and tax-payers that will support its operations. I.e. not just cheap fares for users but massive red-ink elsewhere for ‘someone else’ to pick up.
I am not convinced that nationalised rail companies are the way to go. There are many metropolitan train systems, both private and nationalised that run at huge losses. I would like ours to stay at least solvent, so at the minimum, cost recovery is essential. -
Chenonceau:
I don't believe he has given up at all or says that there is no solution. He did in fact ask the forum, \"Where is your solution?\", in what I believe, is counterpoise to the tidal wave of negativity and simplistic calls for nationalising the rail system. And sometimes (well, often), 'no solution' is better than 'wrong solution', and snowman was merely trying to illustrate the other side of the picture, which had not emerged in this discussion at all until his discourse.
It might be premature to conclude that there is no solution to a problem without having brought more effort to bear on finding a solution. After all, mankind has found innovative solutions to so many things.
I am quite concerned that you are not the only young person that I have come across who believes that Singapore has problems that cannot be solved. One young man in a top class in a top JC (with stellar grades) commented that even if our education system has problems he sees no solution, then there must be no solution. I discerned some arrogance there. If I (top grader in top class in top JC) sees no solution, then there must be none. I too was challenged to propose a solution at that time. I couldn't propose any at that time because I had had no access to data, to successful case studies, to historical events in the development of the current system. But I refused to accept that just because he couldn't find a solution and I had no solution - then there must be no solution.
I think there is a solution, but likely one that is not going to be very popular.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
